One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Ask JKM #45: TV Show Remakes...

A reader named Christopher writes:

“I have a question concerning the Blue Thunder TV series. Something that just came to mind after I
read your article on the 1983 film.

Over the years, various films have spawned TV series
adaptations of said films. For example: Voyage
To The Bottom of the Sea, M*A*S*H, Logan's Run, Blue Thunder, and (to the
best of knowledge - twice in the history of movies and television) Parenthood. Some of these programs have
met with huge success, while others have not.

It wasn't until the remake express had gone full steam that a
thought occurred to me. It may sound far-fetched, but after a careful analysis
of the information, I've been wondering if television series in general, based
on successful films, are technically remakes of said films.

Do you think that the series that I have mentioned are
remakes of those successful films?

Speaking of Blue Thunder, another question I had
concerns its 'rival', Airwolf. Like
the 2001 and Space:1999 controversy, as well as the Star Wars and Battlestar
Galactica controversy, do you think that the controversy between Blue Thunder and Airwolf is along those same lines, or somewhat different?”

Christopher, I love this question, and I think
it brings us to a very interesting discussion.

First, the TV series you mention – namely Logan’s
Run, Blue Thunder, M*A*S*H and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea -- are
indeed remakes of the movies that carried those names.

They are so because, in large part, they take the same characters and situations to
begin with, but then spin-them-out in a new way. Logan’s Run begins again with
Jessica and Logan’s escape from the City of Domes, for instance, but then goes
off in new TV territory, a week-by-week search for Sanctuary.

I suppose we could call these TV remakes “television adaptations” but that
euphemism doesn’t make the point as directly does it?

The second part of your question involves series
that simply capitalize on the success
of popular films, but aren’t strict adaptations or remakes. They are, as you said, “rivals.”

This is something we have seen again and again
in TV history.

The success of Star Wars (1977) permitted
Battlestar
Galactica(1978) to get made.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
made the market ripe for Bring ‘Em Back Alive (1982) and Tales
of the Gold Monkey (1982).

Blue Thunder’s (1983)
success gave us Airwolf (1984).

And much more recently, Twilight’s success assured
that The
Vampire Diaries and True Blood would come to television.

What we can understand from this equation is
that because television programming is expensive, networks generally seek not
new efforts that are “original” or totally different from popular movies, but rather
programs that carry similarities to
properties that have already proven themselves in the marketplace.

In this case, however, an interesting dynamic
complicates the matter. By their very
nature, films can’t tell an on-going story or delve deeply into characters over
a long span of time. But TV series can indeed
accomplish those things.

So in many cases -- from Battlestar Galactica to Airwolf
to The Vampire Diaries -- the so-called “imitator” actually
improves on the original template in some powerful way. After watching twenty hours, for instance, it’s
undeniable that we know more about Captain Apollo than we do about Luke
Skywalker…merely because we have spent more
time with him.

That’s why I always say that Star
Wars opened the door for Battlestar Galactica, but that Battlestar
Galactica walked through that door on its own two feet.

The same is true, I think, for Airwolf,
True Blood, and The Vampire Diaries.

They all may have been green-lit initially as
knock-offs of popular movies, but they eventually became independent of that
origin and featured original and innovative creative material. All these programs developed in new and unforeseen
ways, and thus established a new, “original” identity, as it were.

Airwolf is a strange example. It is undeniably superior to the Blue
Thunder TV series, and audiences agreed.Airwolflasted for four years, and Blue
Thunder tanked after half-a-season.
I’m not sure there’s ever been another example of a “knock-off” running circles
around the original property, and so thoroughly vanquishing it, head-to-head.

But again, it proves that audiences are driven
(in terms of TV watching) to well-developed characters over merely a familiar
concept. What Airwolf had was the
intriguing Stringfellow Hawke (Jan Michael-Vincent) back-story. Blue Thunder (on TV) had nothing
comparable.

About John

award-winning author of 27 books including Horror Films FAQ (2013), Horror Films of the 1990s (2011), Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), TV Year (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007), Mercy in Her Eyes: The Films of Mira Nair (2006),, Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company (2004), The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi (2004), An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith (2002), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film & Television (2004), Exploring Space:1999 (1997), An Analytical Guide to TV's Battlestar Galactica (1998), Terror Television (2001), Space:1999 - The Forsaken (2003) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002).

Follow by Email

What the Critics Say...

"...some of the best writing about the genre has been done by John Kenneth Muir. I am particularly grateful to him for the time and attention he's paid to things others have overlooked, under-appreciated and often written off. His is a fan's perspective first, but with a critic's eye to theme and underscore, to influence and pastiche..." - Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, in the foreword to Horror Films FAQ (October 2013).

"Hands down, John Kenneth Muir is one of the finest critics and writers working today. His deep analysis of contemporary American culture is always illuminating and insightful. John's film writing and criticism is outstanding and a great place to start for any budding writer, but one should also examine his work on comic books, TV, and music. His weighty catalog of books and essays combined with his significant blog production places him at the top of pop culture writers. Johns work is essential in understanding the centrality of culture in modern society." - Professor Bob Batchelor, cultural historian and Executive Director of the James Pedas Communication Center at Thiel College (2014).

"...an independent film scholar, [Muir] explains film studies concepts in a language that is reader-friendly and engaging..." (The Hindu, 2007)"...Muir's genius lies in his giving context to the films..." (Choice, 2007)